and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalistâ€™s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the
(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil companyâ€™s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

This is what typical lawyer would say to (C)
"so what, past behavior does not tell/show that futute behavior will be same"
This is the weakness of (C)

If you negate (A) what you get is that the company could have a motive to increase it profits as well as care for the environment. Then the critique cannot conclude that making profits is the only motive. Hence the argument falls apart.

Fact: The company spend money to rescue otters affected by its oil spill.
Fact: The company admitted that pictures of oil-covered otters damage its image as well as level of sales.
Conclusion of Environmentalist: Company doesn't concern about environment. Its real concern is their sales.

(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
If the company can only have one motive, we have already established that its concern of their sales if one of the motives, then it follows there's no other motives, and it follows that it doesn't concern the enviroment.

(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
Doesn't support Env's claim, in fact it leans toward the company's claim.

(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
Again profit could be one of the motives. It does not exclude the concern of environment as an additional concern.

(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
Yes. So? Doesn't say anything about the company. In fact leans toward supporting the company.

(E) oil companyâ€™s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills
That's a good thing, especially for the company, and has no support whatsoever for the enviormentalists' claim.

I would say A.
C which says " oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action " it says it has shown that thats how it has in the past doesn't mean its the same for the future.
but y eah it could be A or C. i am curious to understand why C can be picked over A if it is picked.

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.The environmentalistâ€™s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it(E) oil companyâ€™s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

Plz explain.

B/W A and C. Go with A.
In C, that oil company concerns about hight profits doesn't exclude the oil company from environmental concerns.

In A,
That oil company cannot have more than one motive does exclude the oil company from environmental concerns.